You subscription allows you entrance to their servers, but if a server is full you are free to play on a different server.
In addition to that there is no law that says you dont have to stand in a queue to enter the game, or every freeking roller coaster in the world would have been sued for what they are worth.
Fair enough, it could make quite the interesting case I am sure for someone more privy to commercial law (maritime myself), I am sure a challenge under TCF would at the very least warrant a hearing.
Looking at some other comments here they really dont warrant a reply, the less said the better!
Because you are not counting other languages. If you count them the number of PVE realms is (about) the same. And btw they are layered. If there is ever a queue at peak hours its not across all PVE servers, same is PVP.
And lol at the idea that you are offered different quality than anyone else. As if you are limited to a different list of servers compared to anyone else, just lol.
Aye, Iād think itād at least warrant a hearing, and it would be an interesting case. But it could also backfire completely and set a precedent for companies just offering the āpossibilityā of a quality of service. ISPās already have that neat little āspeed up toā loophole.
@Antharas: North America has fewer language options than EU, there are more than three normal realms total for EU. Additionally, most of the time the three English language ones do not have queues (I play on all three, so I know). Layers are still active on all three of them.
Also, to address your further pointsā¦ Blizzard is NOT legally required to offer all server types in all languages available for clients. They are also not required maintain any specific normal vs PvP ratio of realms. Addiotionally, queues caused by other players are not a discriminatory act towards you specifically by Blizzard. A bit oversimplified, granted, but that was basically it.
They are, nothing stops you from selecting those pvp realms as the other customers have and having the same experience. There is no discrimination.
EU has:
33 PvP realms (of those 6 German, 4 Russian, 3 French, 1 Spanish)
8 PvE realms (of those 3 German, 1 Russian, 1 French)
1 RP
1 RP-PvP
NA Has:
28 PvP (of those 1 Brazilian and 1 Mexican)
10 PvE (of these 1 Oceanic)
1 RP
2 RP-PvP
From these numbers I at least find that EU should have 11 or maybe 12 PvE realms
And also one more of RP and RP-PvP realms
Edited To Add: Only the Russian PvE server is not layered - but High. I donāt know how the US ones look (havenāt got a US account). But I suspect at least some of them are medium.
@Warecs: When we still had PvP realms on BfA side, US had 117 vs 98 in terms of PvEā¦ or about a ratio of 1,194 to 1ā¦ 8 x 1,194 = 9,552. In other words, the status quo is being maintained with the 8 vs 10 ratio, roughly. EU had more PvP realms, which is also being maintained at 29 vs 28 (I am leaving Russia out, because certain of my sources do not account for it).
As for the RP(-PvP) situationā¦ I addressed this today in another thread. My conclusion in it was that Blizzard could, in theory, add a German RP realm, but it is very unlikely to happenā¦ and a second RP-PvP realm in any support language is even less likely than thatā¦
Well lets never say never, I dont think we need to be reminded that they originally launched Classic with just the TWO english PVP serversā¦
Dear Trelw,
if you had written something in the line of:
ā@ Antharas and Warecs, yes youāre right. US has more non-PvP realms than EU. And this is true what ever you count the Russian servers or not. I donāt normally count them as some of my sources doāt account for them.*
But, this was/is also the situation in Retail until WarMode, so I seriously doubt Blizzard can be bothered to do something about it.ā
Then I would still have agreed that green letters meant helpful and knowledgeable forum user. After the cited answer, Iām afraid my opinion has shifted to arrogant, know-it-all forum user. Iām now a wiser, sadder Paladin.
*even if I think this a non-excuse here. They exist whether your sources look to them or not.
**Also āAs for the RP(-PvP) situationā¦ I addressed this today in another thread.ā Iām sure you are allowed to throw in a link.
@Warecs: We are having a communication failure here. I am sorry, but I do not understand how a statistical analysis of the current situation translates into arrogance. I was making a mathematical observation about the comparability between BfA and Classic (PvE) realm ratios between US and EU. I am also, at times painfully, aware of the limits of my knowledge, which at times causes outright frustration.
Link as per request and yes, it probably should have been in the earlier post, but I got interrupted and the post was somewhat hastily made. I am a bit pressed for time right now as well (due to an unexpected change in circumstances), so this post is not as detailed as I would have liked, either. Sorry about that!
I read your answer as arrogant because Antharas and I actually are right. US has more non-PvP realms than EU.
It is your not admitting this and instead spouting numbers at me, that makes you come over as arrogant.
I do hope my āanswer on your behalfā is a faithful rendering of what you wanted to tell me? If not, please tell me where I went wrong.
A bit more explanation: That the ratio is is/was the same as in Retail before WarMode was implemented, do not make it one bit truer, falser, better, or even more acceptable; it only lowers the likelihood of Blizzardās doing anything about it.
I hope you can understand what Iām trying to say. English is not my first language, and nuances are hard to express.
@Warecs: I never denied that, so I am even more confused than beforeā¦ scratches head
I merely observed that that situation was / is as usual. To my knowledge US has always had a slightly larger PvE player base % (relative to EU) so they naturally need slightly more PvE realms.
English is not my first language either.
You never denied it, you never said it was correct either. You just told us (using a load of numbers I for one do not understand. I understand and speak badly a sh!tload of languages, mathematics is not one of them 
) that the situation was the same as in Retail.
And what Iām trying to say is that the words: "Yes Antaras is right, but ā¦ " is what I miss in this long thread.
@Warecs: Dottie is closer to the truth than Antaras is. His basic premises are unfortunately not all correct. That is the non-mathematical version.
The only thing Dottie says is that all 3 EN-EU Normal servers are layered and without queues. I do not think anybody in their sane mind would deny this. Maths or not.
Likevise I cannot understand that anyone can dispute that US has more Normal servers than EU. That they always had it, does not make it more - or indeed less - true.
ETA:
I think there was a very short time when Blizzard accidentally removed the layers on EN-EU normal realms.
@Warecs: On this I will note that as far as I was able to find out, they only accidentally disabled the display of āLayeredā status, but layering in itself actually was NOT disabled. And that display error affected all āLayeredā realms.
I was not there yes actually I was, and saw the not-layered status, but logged straight in, thinking it was a bug - which it obviously was. This does still not change the fact that Dottie did not speak about the number of realms only their layering or not, which has not much to do with the origial subject ie. number of realms.
@Warecs: With layering on, player numbers dropping (as there are less and less queues) and start of phase 2 not announced, there is no obvious need for new PvE realm(s).
Itās not a question of who needs what. Itās a question of whether US has more normal realms than EU.